Dakota Vs SR20

[GLMS_NC]

Bonanza vs Cirrus. Search this site and you will get all kinds of info.

Both very good airplanes. To me the Chute is the differentiator.

Cirri annuals are slightly higher than the Bo.

Write down your mission then review which serves the mission the best.

If you are worried about Bo CG or useful load, couple things you can do:

1. Move items from the tail to behind dash.
2. Add tip tanks.
3. Do a 337 to add 40lbs addtl nose weight. More for the F33 and V35 models.
4. Put plane on a diet. Remove stuff you don't need. ADF, etc. just add weight and weight could be in the wrong place hurting the CG.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[hindsight2020]

From what I can gather, they don't depreciate much. The only valid comparison is one that accounts for all money in, all money out vs. either time or miles traveled. While there is a premium on the purchase price of the Dakota, you are bound to get that back when you sell. With a 'cheap twin', that's far less of a given.

Thing is, none of them do. All these samples are fully depreciated; I don't see the Dakota having any better resiliency to depreciation than a twin also fully depreciated. My arrow is fully depreciated too. Other than engine times at resale, there's no up or down related to depreciation in the old spam can market. I got pretty much all my money back on the sale of my C-150 and PA-28-161 alike, as any Dakota guy would expect to get back on his. IOW, the capitalization/resale argument is overblown imo. If you're talking about getting mx money back, then yes of course the twin will be much much worse a proposition.

The fact remains, the majority of these supra-100K samples have resale fluctuations singularly driven by ability to borrow, since that's the market these financed millionaires saturate for the rest of us. I'm reading the tea leaves and late 2019 is prime time for a recession (maybe the summer if things hiccup earlier). So let's revisit this thread in 12 months time and see where we sit on this front. By my guess, lots of fire sales and a cooling off the singles market will be the name of the game with the credit contraction. It's not like we haven't been here before. This was exactly the environment immediately preceding my purchase of the Arrow in 2013...it's almost deja vu to be frank. The prior owner admitted to having purchased it for 70K 5 years earlier as a multi-partner equity purchase when everybody was flashing their housing money refi and oil money mid 2000s windfalls, so I know what stealing candy from a child looks like. I'll do it again with a smile on my face too. Birds of scavenge may be unsightly, but we too have a role to play in this ecosystem . I digress.

At any rate, my point is that paying six figures (Dakota) for a comparable capability that goes for half the price (182) is certainly well within people's prerogatives, but cult pricing and/or inflationary pressures on account of giving every Tom dick and harry access to easy credit, are not a new nor a made-up phenomenon. There is a canyon of distinction between that and "marginal utility value" (utilitarian theory) aka what I refer to when using the moniker "good value". Depreciation is already normalized for in this context. None of these things are SR-22s, where your argument for capital depreciation is more relevant imho.

 

[hindsight2020]

Cirri annuals are slightly higher than the Bo.

Write down your mission then review which serves the mission the best.

If you are worried about Bo CG or useful load, couple things you can do:
...[snip]...

Just a bit in jest, but this is the same crowd that "didn't buy an airplane to go slow". So why would you expect them to fly with luggage on their lap or other W/B contortions? You're not going to be able to stuff a Bonanza's luggage compartment on a mission that lands with one hour of gas and two couples by merely moving some avionics to the front (most are already new and thence behind the panel already) or slapping a 3 bladed prop. Tips don't do squat for CG either, which is the problem for most Bos (plenty of useful, most of that past the first 1000 pounds untouchable due to CG).

I'll take your assertions regarding the Cirri mx at face value since I've never been much interested in them. But, I do find it ironic an airplane so emphatically designed to be fixed gear has a higher fixed cost of inspection and cursory "13th month mx" than said "dreaded old retract".

 

[GLMS_NC]

Hindsight2020,

Have you ever worked on a Bo to do what I suggested? Your comments implies you have not. I have.

I recently worked on a V35B. Client had a back-up battery to a Castleberry AI in the rear, along with the autopilot computer and the yaw damper. Left the yaw damper in the rear but pulled the battery further forward. Also pulled the RCA WeatherScout (screen, processor, and antenna), ADF, (dead) back-up alternator and related wiring out. When finished a significant weight loss. Aircraft already had tips, so useful load (which I mention in my post) was already @ 3,600 (20/40/40/20 gas tanks). Completed 337 paperwork to add 20lbs in each side of the engine up front for 40lbs total in addition to factory 20lb nose weight (already had a three blade prop), and the CG moved a bunch. When the client flies with 4 people no one has luggage on their lap. After doing all this work the plane hit the scales and we re-weighed and computed the CG, not just modifying existing numbers the client already had. We leveled and re-computed every calculation. I continue to be amazed how inaccurate W/B numbers for many aircraft are, as they have not been weighed in years. Keep modifying existing numbers. (Pulling out dead avionics and other items DOES make a difference.)

What I stated was for a V35B. An A36 is obviously very different, as are other Bo models.

Single engine aircraft - there aren't many models where you're "going to stuff the baggage". Can you carry reasonable weight? All depends on passenger weight and a lot of other variables. Would the V35B I mentioned need to travel with 120 gal of fuel on every trip? Doubtful. Every pilot should have a W/B spreadsheet or an app with EXACT weight numbers so it's easy to compute on each flight. Most planes I put on (certified) scales the empty weight is rarely correct. When buying a plane - don't trust the weight numbers - get it weighed as a part of pre-buy.

re: Bo landing gear, it's tough and takes a beating. Easy to service if you know what you're doing and have the right tools. That's not typically where I'm spending time, unless it's replacing rod ends or adjusting what the last guy thought was set correctly. Uplock tension and a few other adjustments and you're good to go.

Re: Cirri, AD compliance is not an insignificant cost. Brakes are another item to keep an eye on. Cooling with the wheel pants on is something to watch. I don't work on Cirri so I can't cite specific examples, other than listen to my comrades (who do) tell me what they are billing their clients. For the Cirri pilots here, post what you're averaging for annuals and how many hours between annuals and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

 

[hindsight2020]

Hindsight2020,

Have you ever worked on a Bo to do what I suggested? Your comments implies you have not. I have.

Oh it's all good brother, no disagreement. My comments on the WB were slightly tongue in cheek. I was merely suggesting that the individual variance in empty weight CG for the 33 and 35 line of Beech as a fleet average is of more consequence than comparable six banger 4 seaters like the 182rg, comanche et al. The modifications you cite are indeed not uncommon ways of addressing these concerns in the Beech line. 100% agree with you as to their necessity in the 33 and 35s, especially the newer ones with the heavier and more aft starting EW CG.

And ditto on the accuracy of old weigh-ins. Thing is, the same could be said about the opposite: a lot of favorable old weigh-ins where the owner would be hesitant to re-weigh and hurt the airplane's resale by finding out a less complimentary W/B than previously advertised. This is of course true for anyone selling, not just Beech 33//35 owners.

 

[Pilawt]

At any rate, my point is that paying six figures (Dakota) for a comparable capability that goes for half the price (182) is certainly well within people's prerogatives, but cult pricing and/or inflationary pressures on account of giving every Tom dick and harry access to easy credit, are not a new nor a made-up phenomenon.

Well, there are the later PA-28-235 Cherokee Pathfinders -- a couple of years older than the first -236 (there was no 235 hp model for 1978); same cabin, mogas STC available, more range, and about $10-15K less than a Dakota per Vref.

 

[hindsight2020]

Well, there are the later PA-28-235 Cherokee Pathfinders -- a couple of years older than the first -236 (there was no 235 hp model for 1978); same cabin, mogas STC available, more range, and about $10-15K less than a Dakota per Vref.

Agreed. Too bad they're as common as hens teeth.

 

[GRG55]

When they moved the pitch trim in the Cherokees, the wheel is on the floor between the seats. No leaning forward, and easy to get at unless your butt is too fat.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It still was NOT an improvement. Just another one of Piper's chasing fashion, like those stupid T-tails they made for a while.

 

[GLMS_NC]

I strongly recommend taking all CG and W/B numbers for any aircraft with a grain of salt unless the plane had been weighed recently. And I define recently as within 5 years OR this year if several changes in the log show multiple items in and out. Don't accept mods on top of mods on top or mods not recorded.

I pulled the baggage area carpet piece in a Bo with the carpet protector - 15 pounds gone. In went much lighter carpet. Absolutely must re weigh.

 

[deyoung]

I had my Cherokee re-weighed a year ago at its last annual; turns out it was about 115 lbs heavier than the books thought...

Yeah, agree, weigh it every so often.